|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Jeff StricklandJeff Strickland Date: Jul 24, 2008 05:56
Click.com> wrote in message
news:1i3f84l3tc6463cf273372vbur3knbhoea@4ax.com...
>>
>>Yes, but the affect of Jim Crow was that citizens within a state were
>>treated differently; white men had different laws than blacks and women.
>>
>>The issue was that Jim Crow was a violation of 14 because all citizens
>>were
>>not treated equally under the law.
>
> No, Jim Crow was shot down because of Brown v Board and
> the notion that Separate but equal were inherently
> unequal"---leading up to enforcement of desegregation.
>
Isn't a failure to be treated equally under the law (as I said) and,
seperate but equal are inherently unequal (as you said) really the same
thing?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Josh RosenbluthJosh Rosenbluth Date: Jul 24, 2008 14:14
On Jul 23, 11:51 pm, "Jeff Strickland" verizon.net> wrote:> "Josh Rosenbluth" comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>> If my understanding of 14 is correct, then it would demand that any law in
>> any state be equally applied across all citizens in the state, but
>> presumably a different state might have a different law -- or no law at
>> all -- covering the same issue. So, you can and should pursue an appeal that
>> says, the law was not applied to me as it was applied to another in the
>> state I live in. You ought not pursue an appeal that says, New York has a
>> different law than California, and therefore I got a different sentence for
>> my crime than another person that did the same crme in a different state.
>
> I know of no such case where a plaintiff made this argument. For
> example, criminalized sodomy was struck down in Texas (in part)
> because the law treated gay Texans differently than straight Texans.
> Or in another example, outlawing all abortions was struck down in
> Texas because it infringed on a fundamental right (reproductive
> autonomy), not because abortion was legal in New York.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.76Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Jeff StricklandJeff Strickland Date: Jul 24, 2008 16:32
"Josh Rosenbluth" comcast.net> wrote in message
news:410c4757-2f62-44e4-b252-c6828867a742@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 23, 11:51 pm, "Jeff Strickland" verizon.net> wrote:> "Josh Rosenbluth" comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>> If my understanding of 14 is correct, then it would demand that any law
>> in
>> any state be equally applied across all citizens in the state, but
>> presumably a different state might have a different law -- or no law at
>> all -- covering the same issue. So, you can and should pursue an appeal
>> that
>> says, the law was not applied to me as it was applied to another in the
>> state I live in. You ought not pursue an appeal that says, New York has
>> a
>> different law than California, and therefore I got a different sentence
>> for
>> my crime than another person that did the same crme in a different
>> state.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BirdogBirdog Date: Jul 24, 2008 16:53
Click.com> wrote in message
news:g7ff84tkrahghddg52ogva4k78vk7hcl23@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:18:44 -0400, "Birdog"
> aol.net> wrote:
>>>> No. The "National Government" was a creature of the states. That
>>> creature as you profoundly call it has broken its original bounds and
>>> has
>>> become the behemoth of unquantifiable proportions you and I now enjoy.
>>
>>Hey, Pete. You're arguing with a advocate of a "Living Constitution",
>>i.e.,
>>no Constitution at all. He couldn't be less interested in original intent.
>>You're wasting your time - that type of mentality is beyond redemption.
>
> a) First of all you haven't the intellect to understand
> the constitution was never an immobile, unpliable
> document. It is specifically Short (compared to most
> all state constitutions). The "founders" recognized
> that nit-picking and exact specificity would kill it. ...
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Josh RosenbluthJosh Rosenbluth Date: Jul 25, 2008 00:50
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>
> The Texas law applied only to same-sex sodomy. A man having anal sex
> with a woman in Texas would not break the law.
>
>
>
>
> Well, if Texas was serious about its stand on sodomy, then it should
> have made the law so it also applied to straight couples. I don't know
> what the law was, I only know that (falsely, apparently) that the claim
> was that gays in another state would not be convicted for the same
> things as they were convicted of in Texas.
Yes, what you thought you knew is false.
Josh Rosenbluth
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FranksPeter Franks Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:07
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:12:39 -0700, Peter Franks
> none.com> wrote:
> >>> The people elected senators because the National
>>> congress is Bi-cameral
>> Not as originally constituted.
>
> Article. I.
> Section 1.
> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested
> in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
> of a Senate and House of Representatives.
>
> Does this not (originally) mean TWO--or BiCameral?
>
> If not, explain
My dissent is around your phrase "[t]he people elected senators".
In terms of original intent, this was not the case.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FranksPeter Franks Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:18
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:12:39 -0700, Peter Franks
> none.com> wrote:
> >>> Secondly, a state is a "creature" of the National
>>> Government. The due process clause insures that each
>>> citizen in any state has the same rights
>> No. The "National Government" was a creature of the states. That
>> creature as you profoundly call it has broken its original bounds and
>> has become the behemoth of unquantifiable proportions you and I now enjoy.
>
> Well, there you go again
>
> If a sitting judge was ousted and fired for making
> those long-disproven claims, I gotta tell you you're
> just being laughed at more. (Judge Moore)
>
> People (from states) chose delegates to attend the
> Constitutional convention
|
| Show full article (0.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FranksPeter Franks Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:21
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> As for electing Senators or having them appointed by the Legislature,
> voting for them can't possibly be a bad thing from the perspective of
> states rights and equal representatioin.
Yes it can be a bad thing.
With the ratification of Amendment XVII, the State
-- as a governmental
entity, is no longer represented at the Federal level, only the /people/
of the state are represented.
This is a drastic, fundamental, and unwarranted change to the original
Federal intent.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FranksPeter Franks Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:23
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Jul 22, 9:12 pm, "Jeff Strickland" verizon.net> wrote:>> "Peter Franks" none.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you weren't paying attention to what I wrote. The original
>>>>> intent of federal and representative government has been compromised.
>>>>> Either repeal XIV and XVII, or come up with an alternative to (attempt)
>>>>> to restore original balance. I offered one possible solution. You and
>>>>> Nick...@ Click.com have offered nothing. >
> Nothing is needed. Our present method of operation works, and the
> change in the original balance was freely consented to by 2/3 of both
> houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
It most certainly does NOT work. The fundamental Federal system has
been compromised and its purpose and intent are FAR different from what
was envisioned.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Peter FranksPeter Franks Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:27
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:08:41 -0700 (PDT), Josh
> Rosenbluth comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Wasn't there a civil war fought over the issue of uniformity of laws
>> across states (as applied to slavery), and wasn't the 14th passed as a
>> direct result of that war with the expressed intention (among other
>> things) of restricting state power so we had "equal protection" across
>> all (not just within) states?
>
> Well, not to a southern red-neck who got beat, it
> wasn't--they still consider that an affront and illegal
> operation.
>
> Franks is (sneakily) arguing "original construction" or
> literalism in reading the constitution---something that
> has never been official doctrine.
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
